On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:43:52PM -0700, James E. Lang wrote: > Thank you, Daniel, for your response. You're welcome. And please, keep this on the maling list. > I want ~/.wine converted rather than it being outright replaced. At least that > is what I think I want. You can choose between having it freshly created, and continuing using your old one. I don't think there is a conversion routine (not that there is much to convert, mostly just changes to the registry or like recently the addition of fake dlls). > Since I install a package rather than build from source, I'm not sure that your > suggestion to "make uninstall" applies. Ah, I assumed you were using the source. In that case the package managment of your distribution hopefully is smart enough to remove a package before installing a new version. > It seems to me that wine is a product that is very likely to be needed by > newcomers to the Linux world more than by those who have been using Linux for > quite some time. These same people are less likely to be building wine from the I disagree. Those who really need to use wine (and not just want to because of force of habit) are newcomers as well as old gurus alike. > source code. IMHO, those who construct the RPM and/or DEB packages need to take > this into account. It certainly would help if vfat partitions existing in > /etc/fstab could be added automatically using the same algorithm that Windows > uses to assign drive letters. I really don't know how wine's drive_c would fit That's an issue you have to discuss with the respective package maintainer. > into that scheme of things. You certainly can't write the wine files over > existing files in a vfat partition since that would cause trouble for dual > booting into a vanilla Windows environment. Exactly. Daniel _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
